As I said "successes in the commercial world" is not tied to success in the shrinkwrap world. With Apache being the most-used webserver on the net, I think it would be safe to say that lots of commercial ventures are successfully using it. Ditto for FreeBSD (eg, Yahoo, and Microsoft) And, may we forget Red Hat or SuSE, who even manage to turn a profit with shrink-wrap?
What's more profound with apache is, as I was saying about free software in general, you can combine many different types of tools very nicely. For instance, SQL server user authentication, mod_perl and PHP for server-side programming, etc. And all of these are stable and highly customizable. These are just examples. Visit http://www.linuxberg.com/ or http://www.freshmeat.net/ for more. Particularly, you may want to try a search for "mysql" on Freshmeat.
The examples are just that - examples. I gave those particular ones because I have data to back them up and I'm familiar with them.
Did you really believe that crypto and the gnu utils are the only successes of Open Source, or are you just trolling?:)
So, you're saying that any software that isn't Open Source(tm) and subjected to "peer review" is software that isn't good for anything?
Actually, he explicitly stated the opposite of what you're accusing him of.
I'll make the effort of chewing the statement for you so it will fit nicely in your spoon.
"Don't confuse hobbyist, price-free software (which is also good...) with software which seeks to benefit from peer"
Hobbyist price-free software implies binary-only. When people involved with free software say "price free", it's to differentiate it from what has been termed as "Open Source" by some. As we can see from the "(which is also good)" part, he's not saying that software without source is not good for anything.
"They often overlap, but there's no intrinsic reason why the one is a subset of the other."
This means that programming can be a completely profitless venture as either open source or binary only. Or it can involve profit either way.
Regarding peer review, the concept of also has a strong foothold in cryptographical circles, where what amounts to tarballs are often reviewed. Any closed algorithm tends to not get much regard. Since software in general relies on the same principles, I don't see how that's a stretch at all. If anything, the peer review is more necessary because there are more oppurtunities for bugs the larger the codebase gets. Regarding credentials, if you can come up with a way to crack an cipher, or find a bug in some source code, I don't think anyone is going to ask for your certifications or degree before listening to your input.
As before, this doesn't mean that any given piece of peer-reviewed code is *always* going to be better than any given piece of non-reviewed code. Peer reviewed way has demonstrated to uncover and get fixed shortcomings and bugs better than similar closed-source endeavors, though.
"The failure rate of utilities on the commercial versions of UNIX that we tested . . . ranged from 15-43%." "The failure rate of the utilities on the freely-distributed Linux version of UNIX was second-lowest, at 9%." "The failure rate of the public GNU utilities was the lowest in our study, at only 7%.
Further, the number of coders producing what will be a publically-sold software package is *far* outnumbered by people doing custom in-house jobs. If you're using tools that are less prone to failure and allow you to combine them in new and useful ways, your chances of being asked to do more work and advancing your career tend to be better.:) In case you need this explained too, it means "you can feed your family working with and producing Free Software".
Although a great idea, how many parents do you think would actually agree to something like that?
For as long as I can remember, parents have always had to sign little waivers whenever the school has a field trip. And, for as long as I can remember, almost always 100% of the parents were willing to sign it. I don't see what the difference would be for them waiving the right to sue in exchange for a free computer.
In other words, I think the waiver is a great idea.:)
My favorites are Old Nick, Chimay Ale (black label) and Skullsplitter, but I don't complain about most import beers & microbrews.:) Coors Lite is ok in a pinch, since it at least doesn't have the Bud aftertaste;)
I think the point here is that they're trying to cover their own asses.. If you lied on your signup form, you don't exactly have a strong case if you lose every last cent of your money because everyone decides Mandrake really is a lot cooler than Red Hat next week.;) They also may be aware that free software developers aren't exactly the most litigious bunch to start with anyway.
This reminds me of a ruling in Norway. The case was brought by a University against someone telnetting to their sendmail daemon and doing some other investigation (as part of a TV show) and it turned out the University was running known-security hazardous versions. The Norwegian courts said: If you don't want anyone to visit, *don't* open your ports.
Hopefully we can have similar results in the "Land of the Free".:)
You should not have to consult a lawyer or get permission in writing before making a link.
If Universal is that concerned about people getting to the content without going through the main page, they should have their web server check the HTTP_REFERER variable and deny requests that are from non-approved sites.
Just think. If Universal's webserver admins were a bit more competent, we'd have yet another "Interesting Legal Question" going unaddressed.
I don't think I'd use one as my primary machine, but as a low cost mid-range server running FreeBSD they'd be excellent. Just pop in a NIC and there you go.
Now if only you didn't have to pay the M$ tax...
The Linux equivalent of these is at http://www.buypogo.com I have a feeling that FreeBSD would run on those, too.;) The Linux Store is also pretty cheap.. Neither feature the M$ Tax [tm].:)
Either way, I'll stick to building my own with each component picked out by me, personally, with tender loving care.
one look at that little excercise convinced everyone i know that BSD is full of holes..this may be the case or it may not but i trust irix (& linux) far more than most other OSes..
Allowing a process to rename itself does not a security hole make, imho. If you want to play fool-the-admin, you can just mv the program you want to run to whatever name you'd like to show up in ps.
The fact that you're saying you'd trust Irix to be secure does cast a bit of doubt on your credibility, too... If you'd like a little exercise there, search bugtraq for Irix. Or try logging into a new Irix installation as guest or OutOfBox.
I don't know about necessary, but the current releases of both FreeBSD and NetBSD I'm running use gcc/egcs as their compiler.
$ uname -a FreeBSD some.server.com 3.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 3.2-RELEASE #2: Sat May 22 01:35:02 MST 1999 root@some.server.com:/usr/src/sys/compile/CHUCK i386 $ cc -v gcc version 2.7.2.1
$ uname -a NetBSD someother.server.com 1.4 NetBSD 1.4 (ACID) #4: Mon May 17 05:20:14 PDT 1999 root@someother.server.com:/usr/src/sys/arch/alpha/ compile/ACID alpha $ cc -v Using builtin specs. gcc version egcs-2.91.60 19981201 (egcs-1.1.1 release)
Pricewatch in 1 browser Window, the Linux hardware database in another. Or, if you prefer, eBay in 1 browser window and the Linux hardware database in another.
And, the ppl not busy being sarcastic twits can spend a few minutes checking for favorite pieces of Linux-compatible hardware... And, the hardware co's, whose employees read slashdot can go list all of their models that work there. And, the people who run Linux links sites can update their sites. etc.
I saw a video capture board at Fry's the other day with Linux printed in big letters on the box.:) With all the hype around Linux lately, I wouldn't be surprised if this started happening a Lot more. Just think. Increase your sales overnight for just the price of a sticker!
With companies like Creative Labs and Neomagic co-operating with Linux vendors to make their stuff work with Linux (even when not enlightened enough to make their hardware open), it's a good sign. If you're going to spend the money for coders, why not mention it?
(For the uninformed - NeoMagic even went on to open up their specs! Yay!)
Somebody has been reading the Harvard Business Review!
I think this situation is a bit easier to handle in a corporate setting. It is true that egos can be just as inflated, but there is always a management structure in place that will eventualy put its foot down (hopefuly with the best interest of the company in mind). I have even seen a company set up two groups to do parallel development of a project with the intention of choosing the best result at the end. Sure the manager of the loosing group will be pissed, but his/her only recourse is to leave the company.
Heh.. Actually, I've never laid eyes on the Harvard Business Review, but if they're saying similar things, perhaps they've had experiences similar to mine.:) Most of my experiences in this regard have been gained over 3 years since immersing myself into the free software world, and while working at jobs in corporations.
I think it's worth mentioning that while it may be easier to handle this type of situation in a corporate setting, the outcome is not necessarily (or perhaps even usually) better. In my experience, the winning side tends to be the one with better political connections, period. Of course, occasionally there are good managers who can see through the BS and will make a good decision, but those have been rare in my career.
A specific example I have is while working at [insert telecom corp here], at a job I got because I was recommended by a friend. I would continually end up in arguments with him over the technical merits of different approaches to coding a given task. Since he had been there longer and was much more politically inclined than I was, the managers always preferred whatever he proposed. After I had gotten a different job elsewhere, he admitted that he had behaved that way just because he felt threatened and wanted to seem more valuable.
Another was at a startup where one of the guys was in good with the president of the corporation. He was supposed to be a programmer, but rarely wrote any code, and was supposed to be a Unix admin, but would try to admin by IRC to make up for lack of knowledge and troubleshooting skills. In spite of this, whatever he wanted usually ended up being preferred to anyone else's ideas (except those from the president himself).
A better-known example is the story of the GECOS operating system, which sometimes gets a colorful little footnote in Unix books. It also has an entry in the Jargon file. In a nutshell, its (sarcastic) nickname became "God's Chosen Operating System", because it was chosen over Multics for development at Honeywell for political instead of technical reasons. (And, according to the Jargon file, also ended up flopping and affecting Honeywell in a profoundly negative way in the mainframe market.)
The point being - the situations were handled, but not to the benefit of the projects involved. In an open environment, brown-nosing and authoritarian mandates of dubious merit such as these just don't tend to happen.. And, if they do, the code is there for anyone who wishes to bypass the problem.:)
Sorry to hear you've had to deal with someone of this caliber. First of all, the right thing for Mr. J to do is to either produce an unofficial patch set (or patched version) and designate it as such, or distribute his own software package under a new name crediting the original as the basis.
This (done the civil way) happens somewhat commonly. Notable examples are NCSA httpd -> Apache, gcc -> egcs / pgcc (which has since come full-circle with egcs being the new GNU-blessed compiler), and GIMP -> Unofficial DevGIMP (at http://members.tripod.de/gimp/ ) Developers sometimes disagree about the best way to go about things, or have differing objectives. One of the reasons there is such much Cool Stuff [tm] in the free software community is just because anyone can go off and work on some killer feature(s) no one else sees the importance of, or wants to include in the original.
As for what you can do, first, stay calm. Consider the source of any insults hurled your way. Others will, too. In other words, resist the urge to engage in public flaming. And, procmail is a good friend. Likewise, I would shy away from ratting to providers, or involving lawyers. Obviously, you're concerned about how you're being perceived here. Being the one who isn't being petty / confrontational has definite advantages here. Anything perceived as Big Brotherly or litigious is generally looked down upon by most geeks from what I've seen. For a good example, look at the AntiOnline / Packet Storm articles from a few weeks ago and take note of the general opinion of JP.
For your users' benefit, you should publically detail the situation, on the website, if applicable, or on the mailing list. Make sure that they are aware what your official version is, where to find it, and that his is a colliding version. You may also want to create a task list of contributions that could be made by people interested in speeding th development, or even stating that you're interested in a competent, responsible developer to take over maintainership. If you have decided to completely stop releasing work on this project, you should definitely let people know that you've orphaned it (golden rule applies here... it sucks waiting for something that will never come).
Of course, this isn't unique to free software. Backstabbing and attention-grabbing occur behind the closed doors of corporations, too. Be glad this mess isn't affecting your income.:)
I think this is an important point. Not only do we have all this balkanization of Linux, but we even have distros like Stormix and Mandrake that are derivatives of other distributions, for reasons ranging from political disagrements (Mandrake and RH's refusal to include KDE) to no apparent reason (Stormix). Frankly, this is quite counter-productive and is, and will continue to hurt Linux.
PS: For the record, yes, I am a FreeBSD user, but I am also a former Linux user, and had this concern beforehand.
You seem to be forgetting is that distributions merge sometimes, too. To use one of your examples, Mandrake and Bero merged recently.
Regarding there being lots of distros, anyway, I perceive this as a strength. For instance, I believe Mandrake kept Redhat on its toes by offering Redhat + KDE back when Redhat refused to ship KDE - citing licensing objections as the reason. Now, Redhat includes a version of KDE shipping with pre-2.0 qt, which has the same licensing terms as it did when they refused to ship it. Also, Mandrake is becoming Pentium-optimized (may be already, I don't follow it too closely, so I'm not sure).. This puts additional pressure on Redhat and co to do something similar. Simply put - competition. Which means, even when merging doesn't take place, the "dominant" distros will tend to copy the successful ideas, in effect using the upstarts as testbeds.
Aside from competition, "custom-tailoring" can be nice as well. For instance, Debian encourages others to base distributions on Debian, and has recently partnered with Corel. This sort of thing is mutually beneficial, because the end-user may want the technical qualities of Debian, but think it's too hard to use, or want it to be stronger in some other area - like Linux for hams, or an office-specific distro with only DFSG-free office apps already nicely laid out to make it easy to set up a workstation for a secretary, for instance. I don't see how any of these would cause real problems. Users will care about how easily they can get j random app to run on their system, and those who don't provide support with what's out there probably won't stay around long. If the users want compatability, it's obvious where to get it.:)
For the record, I use Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD and Solaris daily. Although Solaris gets on my nerves at times, all of them have their endearing qualities.:)
Just out of curiosity brought on by the 2% wholesale cost of recording devices going to the RIAA:
Why don't actual artists start a group, like "Recording Artists Association of America", so they can get in on things like this (and blank casette/cd charges, too)? Or is there one already? Not to say I think this fee is desirable.. but if it's around, it would be nice to see it actually being used for the point of copyright - to allow people to make a living producing artistic things.
At the time my 486DX100 could not even attempt to replicate, specially under windows , and old PCs used to love making you wait while it accessed a floppy. Admittedly the amiga was under a bit of strain now and again, but it opened my eyes to think that clock speed is not the answer, a solid multitasking enviroment on sillicon is.
So why wasnt anything learnt from the amiga?
That reminds me, my boss' PII/266 running NT Workstation hardlocked the other day trying to copy a file from a floppy with badblocks.;) The sparcstation I've got here recognized the filesystem enough to mount it with volcheck, but received an IO error trying to copy the file. No OS troubles, of course, just some messages in the xterm I was doing the cp in.
Regarding learning from Amiga, I think at least Microsoft did. Specifically, that all the technical abilities in the world doesn't mean squat in the mass market, that's decided by marketing. And, this was even back when there were fewer computer users, with presumably a higher average IQ. I suppose at least this time around the cost of a system is such that the adventurous types can better afford to have multiple systems around for amusement... or even dual boot.
Btw, I had the occasion to witness an amiga 500 a few years ago, and thought "Wow!". The UI felt nice, even though I'd never used it before, multitasking worked impressively, and it did all this on hardware that was ancient compared to my pc at the time, which did all those poorly, as it was running something from M$. I remember mentioning its elegance to a windows whore once, who proceeded to call me a dumb kid, and quoted her 80k income as evidence.:) Whee.
With the article being titled "Pseudo-Free Software" in Major Distributions?, I think pointing out the fact that Debian is very careful about this sort of thing is quite on-topic.
Btw, an interesting tidbit from Magnicomp.com's ftp server:
The following statement is required by the original University of California copyright: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors
What this means is they've taken something under the BSD license and made their fork proprietary. Of course, the Magnicomp.Com-unmolested code under the BSD license will remain free.
Not as far as I know.. The latest version at the time of the rootshell incident was 1.2.26, and is detailed here This is the last mention of ssh in this light on bugtraq.
You should be using ssh-1.2.27, as it's the most recent 1.2.x version, which doesn't have the noxious licensing terms of ssh 2.x Quoth the license:
(b) Activities other than copying, distribution and modification of the Program are not subject to this License and they are outside its scope. Functional use (running) of the Program is not restricted.
The sdist program it comes with is the secure replacement for rdist (and has no restrictions on Functional use as per the COPYING file in the ssh distribution).
In common use around here, FUD has taken on a broader meaning - something said that isn't "politically correct" or something the speaker disagrees with.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said "successes in the commercial world" is not tied to success in the shrinkwrap world. With Apache being the most-used webserver on the net, I think it would be safe to say that lots of commercial ventures are successfully using it. Ditto for FreeBSD (eg, Yahoo, and Microsoft) And, may we forget Red Hat or SuSE, who even manage to turn a profit with shrink-wrap?
:)
What's more profound with apache is, as I was saying about free software in general, you can combine many different types of tools very nicely. For instance, SQL server user authentication, mod_perl and PHP for server-side programming, etc. And all of these are stable and highly customizable. These are just examples. Visit http://www.linuxberg.com/ or http://www.freshmeat.net/ for more. Particularly, you may want to try a search for "mysql" on Freshmeat.
The examples are just that - examples. I gave those particular ones because I have data to back them up and I'm familiar with them.
Did you really believe that crypto and the gnu utils are the only successes of Open Source, or are you just trolling?
From xfstt's included FAQ:
4.3 Why another free ttf font server?
Xfstt was actually the first free truetype font server. It was written from scratch, the useful freetype library not being ready in early 1997.
Perhaps you're thinking of xfsft?
I'll make the effort of chewing the statement for you so it will fit nicely in your spoon.
"Don't confuse hobbyist, price-free software (which is also good...) with software which seeks to benefit from peer"
Hobbyist price-free software implies binary-only. When people involved with free software say "price free", it's to differentiate it from what has been termed as "Open Source" by some. As we can see from the "(which is also good)" part, he's not saying that software without source is not good for anything.
"They often overlap, but there's no intrinsic reason why the one is a subset of the other."
This means that programming can be a completely profitless venture as either open source or binary only. Or it can involve profit either way.
Regarding peer review, the concept of also has a strong foothold in cryptographical circles, where what amounts to tarballs are often reviewed. Any closed algorithm tends to not get much regard. Since software in general relies on the same principles, I don't see how that's a stretch at all. If anything, the peer review is more necessary because there are more oppurtunities for bugs the larger the codebase gets. Regarding credentials, if you can come up with a way to crack an cipher, or find a bug in some source code, I don't think anyone is going to ask for your certifications or degree before listening to your input.
As before, this doesn't mean that any given piece of peer-reviewed code is *always* going to be better than any given piece of non-reviewed code. Peer reviewed way has demonstrated to uncover and get fixed shortcomings and bugs better than similar closed-source endeavors, though.
For instance, when testing standard system tools, GNU tools had a lower failure rate than any of the proprietary UNIX tools. Take a look at http://www.cs.wisc.edu/Dienst/UI/2.0/Describe/ncst rl.uwmadison/CS-TR-95-1268 for details.
To quote a bit of it:
"The failure rate of utilities on the commercial versions of UNIX that we tested . . . ranged from 15-43%." "The failure rate of the utilities on the freely-distributed Linux version of UNIX was second-lowest, at 9%." "The failure rate of the public GNU utilities was the lowest in our study, at only 7%.
Further, the number of coders producing what will be a publically-sold software package is *far* outnumbered by people doing custom in-house jobs. If you're using tools that are less prone to failure and allow you to combine them in new and useful ways, your chances of being asked to do more work and advancing your career tend to be better. :) In case you need this explained too, it means "you can feed your family working with and producing Free Software".
In other words, I think the waiver is a great idea. :)
My favorites are Old Nick, Chimay Ale (black label) and Skullsplitter, but I don't complain about most import beers & microbrews. :) Coors Lite is ok in a pinch, since it at least doesn't have the Bud aftertaste ;)
In case you missed it, VA hired on 2 debian developers (that I know of), and the Linux.Com site they host advertises itself as "Powered by Debian" :)
I think the point here is that they're trying to cover their own asses.. If you lied on your signup form, you don't exactly have a strong case if you lose every last cent of your money because everyone decides Mandrake really is a lot cooler than Red Hat next week. ;) They also may be aware that free software developers aren't exactly the most litigious bunch to start with anyway.
This reminds me of a ruling in Norway. The case was brought by a University against someone telnetting to their sendmail daemon and doing some other investigation (as part of a TV show) and it turned out the University was running known-security hazardous versions. The Norwegian courts said: If you don't want anyone to visit, *don't* open your ports.
:)
Hopefully we can have similar results in the "Land of the Free".
The problem is, this is the *web*
You should not have to consult a lawyer or get permission in writing before making a link.
If Universal is that concerned about people getting to the content without going through the main page, they should have their web server check the HTTP_REFERER variable and deny requests that are from non-approved sites.
Just think. If Universal's webserver admins were a bit more competent, we'd have yet another "Interesting Legal Question" going unaddressed.
Either way, I'll stick to building my own with each component picked out by me, personally, with tender loving care.
Kick down the stable door and run free with Linux!
According to the applicable section of the A HREF="NetBSD FAQ, you should be using cdd for that.
The fact that you're saying you'd trust Irix to be secure does cast a bit of doubt on your credibility, too... If you'd like a little exercise there, search bugtraq for Irix. Or try logging into a new Irix installation as guest or OutOfBox.
I don't know about necessary, but the current releases of both FreeBSD and NetBSD I'm running use gcc/egcs as their compiler.
/ compile/ACID alpha
$ uname -a
FreeBSD some.server.com 3.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 3.2-RELEASE #2: Sat May 22 01:35:02 MST 1999 root@some.server.com:/usr/src/sys/compile/CHUCK i386
$ cc -v
gcc version 2.7.2.1
$ uname -a
NetBSD someother.server.com 1.4 NetBSD 1.4 (ACID) #4: Mon May 17 05:20:14 PDT 1999 root@someother.server.com:/usr/src/sys/arch/alpha
$ cc -v
Using builtin specs.
gcc version egcs-2.91.60 19981201 (egcs-1.1.1 release)
Imagine:
Pricewatch in 1 browser Window, the Linux hardware database in another. Or, if you prefer, eBay in 1 browser window and the Linux hardware database in another.
And, the ppl not busy being sarcastic twits can spend a few minutes checking for favorite pieces of Linux-compatible hardware... And, the hardware co's, whose employees read slashdot can go list all of their models that work there. And, the people who run Linux links sites can update their sites. etc.
I saw a video capture board at Fry's the other day with Linux printed in big letters on the box. :) With all the hype around Linux lately, I wouldn't be surprised if this started happening a Lot more. Just think. Increase your sales overnight for just the price of a sticker!
With companies like Creative Labs and Neomagic co-operating with Linux vendors to make their stuff work with Linux (even when not enlightened enough to make their hardware open), it's a good sign. If you're going to spend the money for coders, why not mention it?
(For the uninformed - NeoMagic even went on to open up their specs! Yay!)
I think it's worth mentioning that while it may be easier to handle this type of situation in a corporate setting, the outcome is not necessarily (or perhaps even usually) better. In my experience, the winning side tends to be the one with better political connections, period. Of course, occasionally there are good managers who can see through the BS and will make a good decision, but those have been rare in my career.
A specific example I have is while working at [insert telecom corp here], at a job I got because I was recommended by a friend. I would continually end up in arguments with him over the technical merits of different approaches to coding a given task. Since he had been there longer and was much more politically inclined than I was, the managers always preferred whatever he proposed. After I had gotten a different job elsewhere, he admitted that he had behaved that way just because he felt threatened and wanted to seem more valuable.
Another was at a startup where one of the guys was in good with the president of the corporation. He was supposed to be a programmer, but rarely wrote any code, and was supposed to be a Unix admin, but would try to admin by IRC to make up for lack of knowledge and troubleshooting skills. In spite of this, whatever he wanted usually ended up being preferred to anyone else's ideas (except those from the president himself).
A better-known example is the story of the GECOS operating system, which sometimes gets a colorful little footnote in Unix books. It also has an entry in the Jargon file. In a nutshell, its (sarcastic) nickname became "God's Chosen Operating System", because it was chosen over Multics for development at Honeywell for political instead of technical reasons. (And, according to the Jargon file, also ended up flopping and affecting Honeywell in a profoundly negative way in the mainframe market.)
The point being - the situations were handled, but not to the benefit of the projects involved. In an open environment, brown-nosing and authoritarian mandates of dubious merit such as these just don't tend to happen.. And, if they do, the code is there for anyone who wishes to bypass the problem.
Hi,
... it sucks waiting for something that will never come).
:)
Sorry to hear you've had to deal with someone of this caliber. First of all, the right thing for Mr. J to do is to either produce an unofficial patch set (or patched version) and designate it as such, or distribute his own software package under a new name crediting the original as the basis.
This (done the civil way) happens somewhat commonly. Notable examples are NCSA httpd -> Apache, gcc -> egcs / pgcc (which has since come full-circle with egcs being the new GNU-blessed compiler), and GIMP -> Unofficial DevGIMP (at http://members.tripod.de/gimp/ ) Developers sometimes disagree about the best way to go about things, or have differing objectives. One of the reasons there is such much Cool Stuff [tm] in the free software community is just because anyone can go off and work on some killer feature(s) no one else sees the importance of, or wants to include in the original.
As for what you can do, first, stay calm. Consider the source of any insults hurled your way. Others will, too. In other words, resist the urge to engage in public flaming. And, procmail is a good friend. Likewise, I would shy away from ratting to providers, or involving lawyers. Obviously, you're concerned about how you're being perceived here. Being the one who isn't being petty / confrontational has definite advantages here. Anything perceived as Big Brotherly or litigious is generally looked down upon by most geeks from what I've seen. For a good example, look at the AntiOnline / Packet Storm articles from a few weeks ago and take note of the general opinion of JP.
For your users' benefit, you should publically detail the situation, on the website, if applicable, or on the mailing list. Make sure that they are aware what your official version is, where to find it, and that his is a colliding version. You may also want to create a task list of contributions that could be made by people interested in speeding th development, or even stating that you're interested in a competent, responsible developer to take over maintainership. If you have decided to completely stop releasing work on this project, you should definitely let people know that you've orphaned it (golden rule applies here
Of course, this isn't unique to free software. Backstabbing and attention-grabbing occur behind the closed doors of corporations, too. Be glad this mess isn't affecting your income.
Good luck!
Regarding there being lots of distros, anyway, I perceive this as a strength. For instance, I believe Mandrake kept Redhat on its toes by offering Redhat + KDE back when Redhat refused to ship KDE - citing licensing objections as the reason. Now, Redhat includes a version of KDE shipping with pre-2.0 qt, which has the same licensing terms as it did when they refused to ship it. Also, Mandrake is becoming Pentium-optimized (may be already, I don't follow it too closely, so I'm not sure).. This puts additional pressure on Redhat and co to do something similar. Simply put - competition. Which means, even when merging doesn't take place, the "dominant" distros will tend to copy the successful ideas, in effect using the upstarts as testbeds.
Aside from competition, "custom-tailoring" can be nice as well. For instance, Debian encourages others to base distributions on Debian, and has recently partnered with Corel. This sort of thing is mutually beneficial, because the end-user may want the technical qualities of Debian, but think it's too hard to use, or want it to be stronger in some other area - like Linux for hams, or an office-specific distro with only DFSG-free office apps already nicely laid out to make it easy to set up a workstation for a secretary, for instance. I don't see how any of these would cause real problems. Users will care about how easily they can get j random app to run on their system, and those who don't provide support with what's out there probably won't stay around long. If the users want compatability, it's obvious where to get it.
For the record, I use Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD and Solaris daily. Although Solaris gets on my nerves at times, all of them have their endearing qualities.
Just out of curiosity brought on by the 2% wholesale cost of recording devices going to the RIAA:
Why don't actual artists start a group, like "Recording Artists Association of America", so they can get in on things like this (and blank casette/cd charges, too)? Or is there one already? Not to say I think this fee is desirable.. but if it's around, it would be nice to see it actually being used for the point of copyright - to allow people to make a living producing artistic things.
Regarding learning from Amiga, I think at least Microsoft did. Specifically, that all the technical abilities in the world doesn't mean squat in the mass market, that's decided by marketing. And, this was even back when there were fewer computer users, with presumably a higher average IQ. I suppose at least this time around the cost of a system is such that the adventurous types can better afford to have multiple systems around for amusement... or even dual boot.
Btw, I had the occasion to witness an amiga 500 a few years ago, and thought "Wow!". The UI felt nice, even though I'd never used it before, multitasking worked impressively, and it did all this on hardware that was ancient compared to my pc at the time, which did all those poorly, as it was running something from M$. I remember mentioning its elegance to a windows whore once, who proceeded to call me a dumb kid, and quoted her 80k income as evidence.
Btw, an interesting tidbit from Magnicomp.com's ftp server: What this means is they've taken something under the BSD license and made their fork proprietary. Of course, the Magnicomp.Com-unmolested code under the BSD license will remain free.
Not as far as I know.. The latest version at the time of the rootshell incident was 1.2.26, and is detailed here This is the last mention of ssh in this light on bugtraq.
In common use around here, FUD has taken on a broader meaning - something said that isn't "politically correct" or something the speaker disagrees with.